Indeed, Inc. v. aniket mishra
Claim Number: FA1912001873513
Complainant is Indeed, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Justin Haddock of Indeed, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is aniket mishra (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <indeedrecruiter.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 3, 2019; the Forum received payment on December 3, 2019.
On December 03, 2019, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <indeedrecruiter.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On December 4, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 24, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@indeedrecruiter.com. Also on December 4, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 27, 2019 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant relies on its rights in the INDEED trademark acquired through its trademark registrations listed below and its extensive use of the mark online in association with its recruitment services.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name domain <indeedrecruiter.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INDEED service mark as it incorporates Complainant’s INDEED mark in its entirety, merely tacking on the generic term “recruiter”. The relevant and dominant portion of the disputed domain name, “indeed,” is identical to Complainant’s mark and as such, the Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name remain the same in appearance and commercial impression. Complainant also submits that the addition of the generic term “recruiter” cannot distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark, which is otherwise identical, especially given the nature of goods and services offered by Complainant.
Furthermore, Complainant submits that the presence of the <.com> suffix is irrelevant in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis, and thus, is excluded from consideration for the purposes of determining whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks.
Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant asserts that it has long-established rights in its INDEED mark, which it has used in word and logo form, for over a decade before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. Furthermore Complainant states that it has used its <indeed.com> domain name as the address of its employment related search engine since at least 2004 and now enjoys over 250 million unique visitors every month from over 60 different countries. Complainant argues that the evidence clearly demonstrates that Respondent must have had actual knowledge of Complainant and its business when the disputed domain name was registered.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has impersonated Complainant by sending fake emails using the disputed domain name for the purpose of fraudulently acquiring financial information and stealing money from Complainant’s customers and potential customers. Complainant submits that panels have consistently held that such use of a domain name is inherently in bad faith. In support of this allegation, Complainant has adduced as an annex to the Complaint a copy of an email, with details of the addressee redacted. The sender is stated to be <info@indeedrecruiter.com> and the sender invites the addressee to apply for a position in a famous international hotel group, requests payment of “Rs. 999/- INR For generating your reference ID” and further requests the following personal data from the addressee: “1. Higher Qualification Certificate. 2. Experience Certificate. 3. Address Proof & ID Proof (Aadhaar or Pan). 4. Passport & Postcard Size Photo. 5. Passport Scan Copy.(Front and Back Side)”
Complainant further argues that Respondent’s bad faith is also evidenced by the fact that it owns no trademark or other intellectual property rights in the disputed domain name; that the disputed domain name does not consist of the legal name of or a name commonly used to identify Respondent; that Respondent has not used the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services or any non-commercial or fair use of Complainant’s marks or the disputed domain name.
Complainant argues that the circumstances indicate that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users providing payment or personal financial information, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark, in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns and maintains a website with information about jobs for employers seeking to hire employees and job seekers searching for employment opportunities using the INDEED mark.
Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations:
United States trademark registration INDEED, registration number 3,141,242, registered on September 12, 2006 for services in international classes 035 and 042.
United States trademark registration INDEED and Design registration number 3,984,951 registered on June 28, 2011 for services in international classes 035 and 042.
United States trademark registration INDEED registration number 4,282,756, registered on January 29, 2013 for goods in international class 09.
Complainant also claims ownership of two Canadian trademark registration and a European Union trademark but has not provided any evidence of same.
Complainant has an established Internet presence as the owner of the domain name <indeed.com> which it uses as the address of its employment related search engine at < https://www.indeed.com/ > with information about its goods and services.
There is no information available about Respondent except for that found in the Complaint, the Registrar’s WhoIs and the Registrar’s response to the Forum’s request for verification of the registration in this proceeding.
The disputed domain name <indeedrecruiter.com> was registered on September 11, 2019 using a proxy service to conceal the identity of the registrant and resolves to a website with no substantive content. Complainant has adduced uncontested evidence that the disputed domain name has been used to send fraudulent emails purporting to provide job opportunities and requesting upfront payment and personal data of addressees.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant has produced convincing evidence of its rights in the INDEED mark through its abovementioned trademark registrations and its extensive use of the mark in association with its international recruitment services.
The disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s INDEED mark, the generic term “recruiter” and the <.com> gTLD extension. Complainant’s trademark is the initial, dominant and only distinctive element in the disputed domain name.The disputed domain name contains the disputed domain name in its entirety and in the circumstances, the gTLD extension may be ignored for the purposes of comparison.
This Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark INDEED in which Complainant has rights. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name alleging that there is no evidence in the WHOIS information to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name; that Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its INDEED mark or any other mark owned by Complainant; that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain; that Respondent has not used, nor made any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; and that Complainant is using the disputed domain name <indeedrecruiter.com> for fraudulent purposes to mislead job-seekers, requesting payments and personal data for fake job applications.
In such circumstances the burden of production shifts to Respondent to prove that it has such rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has not delivered any Response or any other communication in this proceeding and therefore has failed to discharge this burden.
This Panel finds therefore that on the balance of probabilities the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The selection of the disputed domain name which has Complainant’s trademark INDEED as the only distinctive and dominant element, and the addition of the word “recruiter”, and the use of the disputed domain name as an email address by Respondent to communicate with job-seekers indicates that it is implausible that the registrant of the disputed domain name was unaware of Complainant and its recruitment business when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered.
In the absence of any explanation from Respondent this Panel finds that on the balance of probabilities, the disputed domain name was chosen and registered in bad faith to take predatory advantage of Complainant’s reputation and mislead Internet users and in particular job-seekers.
Complainant has adduced uncontested credible evidence that Respondent has used the disputed domain name as an email address to send messages requesting advance payment for interview opportunities and ask addresses to send personal data. Complainant alleges that this is fraudulent activity by Respondent. Respondent has not responded or contested these allegations.
This Panel finds therefore that on the balance of probabilities Respondent is intentionally using the disputed domain name in bad faith to induce Internet users to provide payment and personal financial information for fake opportunities of job interviews, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark, in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <indeedrecruiter.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
_____________________
James Bridgeman SC
Panelist
Dated: December 28, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page